[RESULT][CHAIN][VOTE] accept the 2.0-work brach as proper codebase in /trunk

2011-09-08 Thread Simone Tripodi
Hi all, The proposal of making the 2.0-work brach as proper codebase in /trunk for the [chain] component passes with 3 +1 binding votes from * Simone Tripodi * James Carman * Matt Benson no other votes have been casted. I'm going to move the current trunk in a 1.X branch, and the 2.0-work in

Re: [RESULT][CHAIN][VOTE] accept the 2.0-work brach as proper codebase in /trunk

2011-09-08 Thread Paul Benedict
Here's my +1 non-binding. On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.org wrote: Hi all, The proposal of making the 2.0-work brach as proper codebase in /trunk for the [chain] component passes with 3 +1 binding votes from  * Simone Tripodi  * James Carman  * Matt

Re: [RESULT][CHAIN][VOTE] accept the 2.0-work brach as proper codebase in /trunk

2011-09-08 Thread Simone Tripodi
great, looking forward for more contributions Paul!!! thanks a lot, have a nice day! Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Paul Benedict pbened...@apache.org wrote: Here's my +1 non-binding. On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:38 PM,

Re: [CHAIN][VOTE] accept the 2.0-work brach as proper codebase in /trunk

2011-09-07 Thread Simone Tripodi
Hi all, just to remind that vote closes on Thu 8 Sept on 3:13 PM GMT, please cast your votes! :) Many thanks in advance, all the best! Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.org wrote: Hi Jochen!

Re: [CHAIN][VOTE] accept the 2.0-work brach as proper codebase in /trunk

2011-09-07 Thread James Carman
+1 Sent from tablet device. Please excuse typos and brevity. On Sep 7, 2011 4:27 AM, Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.org wrote: Hi all, just to remind that vote closes on Thu 8 Sept on 3:13 PM GMT, please cast your votes! :) Many thanks in advance, all the best! Simo

Re: [CHAIN][VOTE] accept the 2.0-work brach as proper codebase in /trunk

2011-09-07 Thread Matt Benson
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.org wrote: Hi all guys, thanks to a user, Elijah Zupancic, that recently submitted CHAIN-53, a group of Commons committers started working on that component in a branch 2.0[1] to experiment updates and study improvements in

[CHAIN][VOTE] accept the 2.0-work brach as proper codebase in /trunk

2011-09-05 Thread Simone Tripodi
Hi all guys, thanks to a user, Elijah Zupancic, that recently submitted CHAIN-53, a group of Commons committers started working on that component in a branch 2.0[1] to experiment updates and study improvements in order to push a next release soon. We are in the middle of discussing about the

Re: [CHAIN][VOTE] accept the 2.0-work brach as proper codebase in /trunk

2011-09-05 Thread Simone Tripodi
my +1 Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.org wrote: Hi all guys, thanks to a user, Elijah Zupancic, that recently submitted CHAIN-53, a group of Commons committers started working on that

Re: [CHAIN][VOTE] accept the 2.0-work brach as proper codebase in /trunk

2011-09-05 Thread Jochen Wiedmann
Housework check: - Has the package name been changed? A- Has thae Maven groupId aand/or artifactId been changed? DAOes the s On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.org wrote: Hi all guys, thanks to a user, Elijah Zupancic, that recently submitted CHAIN-53, a

Re: [CHAIN][VOTE] accept the 2.0-work brach as proper codebase in /trunk

2011-09-05 Thread sebb
On 5 September 2011 16:33, Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote: Housework check: -  Has the package name been changed? A- Has thae Maven groupId aand/or artifactId been changed? I'd strongly recommend leaving these changes until just before release - it's much easier to run Clirr

Re: [CHAIN][VOTE] accept the 2.0-work brach as proper codebase in /trunk

2011-09-05 Thread Simone Tripodi
Hi Jochen! we still haven't because, as emerged in the past discussions, actual modifications can still be considered acceptable in therms of retro-compatibility. Anyway, we are also in the middle of discussions about API redesign, and breaking the 1.X compatibility, so we will update those